CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingStudent Assessment and Feedback

Leveraging AI to enhance writing skills of senior TFL students in Kazakhstan: A case study using “Write & Improve”

Open access
Bodaubekov, Abbas, Agaidarova, Shakhrizat, Zhussipbek, Talgat, Gaipov, Davronzhon, Balta, Nuri·2025·Contemporary Educational Technology
DOI 10.30935/cedtech/15687
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigates the effectiveness of feedback provided by teachers versus feedback generated by the Write & Improve platform in enhancing the writing skills of senior undergraduate students enrolled in a “two foreign language” program at a private university in Kazakhstan. The quasi-experimental design involved four teachers, each teaching one control and one experimental class, totaling eight groups of students. Pre- and post-tests were conducted over a period of five weeks, focusing on task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, grammar and accuracy, and overall score. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests for pre-test comparisons, and MANCOVA analyses for post-test comparisons. Results show no significant difference in the impact of Write & Improve feedback compared to traditional teacher feedback across multiple dimensions of the writing test, both within individual teachers’ classes and when combined. Longitudinal analysis reveals fluctuating scores over time with no consistent improvement. Thus, the study concludes that the Write & Improve tool is equally effective as teacher feedback in improving students’ writing skills. This implies that educational institutions can potentially integrate technology-based feedback systems like Write & Improve alongside traditional teaching methods to enhance student learning outcomes in writing proficiency.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.30935/cedtech/15687

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Agaidarova et al.'s hybrid scaffolding system using the Write & Improve platform with teacher support encouraged iterative revision and reduced dependence on teacher correction.

    “The platform's automated feedback, in conjunction with teacher support and tools like Grammarly, created a hybrid scaffolding system that encouraged iterative revision and reduced dependence on teacher correction.”

    From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes Write & Improve as a supplement to teacher input, offering immediate feedback that supports self-regulated learning and repeated practice. But the Results compare classes receiving Write & Improve feedback with classes receiving teacher feedback; they do not report that a combined system encouraged iterative revision or reduced students’ dependence on teacher correction. The Instrument, Implementation, and Data Collection section (page unavailable) says Grammarly was used to check for plagiarism, not to provide writing feedback in that system. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This hybrid scaffolding structure allowed students to work at their own pace while developing self-monitoring strategies.

    “This structure allowed students to work at their own pace while developing self-monitoring strategies.”

    From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Instrument, Implementation, and Data Collection section (page unavailable) says students could complete weekly tasks at a convenient time before a deadline, supporting the flexibility part of the claim. It describes AI feedback and independent task completion but does not report that students developed self-monitoring strategies; the experimental group received platform feedback rather than a described hybrid feedback structure. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Luckin, R., & Holmes, W. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
  2. Sumakul, D. T. Y., Hamied, F. A., & Sukyadi, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence in EFL classrooms: Friend or foe? LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 232-256.
  3. Toscano, M. A. (2023). Write & Improve tool and writing skill [Bachelor's thesis, Universidad Técnica de Ambato].
  4. Zaghlool, Z. D., & Khasawneh, M. A. S. (2023). Incorporating the impacts and limitations of AI-driven feedback, evaluation, and real-time conversation tools in foreign language learning. Migration Letters, 20(7), 1071- 1083.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bodaubekov, A., Agaidarova, S., Zhussipbek, T., Gaipov, D., & Balta, N.
Affiliations
  • Suleyman Demirel University (KZ)
  • Karaganda Buketov University (KZ)
  • SDU University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN
Corresponding author
Balta, Nuri
ORCID
Venue
Contemporary Educational Technology
Publisher
Bastas Publications
Published
2025-01-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
ep548
ISSN
1309-517X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.30935/cedtech/15687
OpenAlex
W4405056637
Cited by
7
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5
FWCI
11.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Contemporary Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
AI-generated feedback, teacher feedback, writing skills, English as a foreign language, undergraduate students, cohesion and coherence, lexical resources

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review